Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Substitute Staffing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee debates reinstating building-based substitute teachers; estimated cost near $400,000

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members discussed bringing back at least one building-based substitute at each school to improve coverage and continuity. Administration estimated a minimum annual cost of about $400,000 for one building-based substitute at every building; committee asked for more detailed breakdowns before deciding.

The East Providence School Committee discussed reinstating building-based substitute teachers at each school to reduce classroom splits and improve continuity for students.

Committee members described days in March when 50 or more staff were absent and noted multiple classrooms with no substitute coverage. Proponents said a building-based substitute provides continuity, supports inclusive classrooms and can perform a range of duties beyond covering classes. One committee member said split classrooms can lower instructional quality and contribute to teacher burnout.

Administration provided a high-level cost estimate: paying one building-based substitute per school for a 180-day school year at about $150 per day would total roughly $400,000 annually. Administrators cautioned that building-based positions draw from the same substitute pool and do not add substitutes to the system, so on days with high district-wide absences there may still be coverage gaps. They also noted the district's substitute fill rates have improved after recent recruitment efforts.

Committee members asked administration for a detailed breakdown of absences and fill rates by school and asked staff to model scenarios showing how building-based subs would be assigned across varying absence patterns. Members also discussed budget trade-offs and whether the district should pursue additional city funding to support the positions.

No formal vote was taken; members asked the administration to return with data to support budget deliberations.